140 PROF. ST.-GEORGE MIVART ON THE ZLUROIDEA. [Feb. 7, 
divergences do not run parallel. Professor Flower himself has 
remarked !:—“ Too exclusive attention has been paid to the characters 
of the teeth in defining the family divisions of the order. The 
difficulty in the taxonomic use of these organs arises from the fact 
that the teeth of all the members of such a limited and well-defined 
group as the terrestrial or fissipedal Carnivora are formed on the 
same general type, but with infinite modifications of this type. And 
as these modifications are mainly adaptive, and not essentially indica- 
tive of affinity, they reappear in various degrees and combinations in 
many of the great natural divisions of the order. Their teeth alone 
afford us no satisfactory means of diagnosis between the very distinct 
groups of the Procyonide and Viverride. The teeth of Proteles, 
though demonstrating undeniably its right to a place in the order, 
are so rudimentary or generalized that they afford no help whatever 
to determine its special position. Again, the teeth of Gulo are so 
similar to those of Hyena, that, if this character alone were used, 
these two otherwise widely differentiated forms would be placed in 
the closest proximity. Enhydris, among the Mustelide, and Oyno- 
gale, among the Viverride, might also be cited as examples of 
strangely modified dentition, with comparatively little corresponding 
change in other parts.’ I thoroughly agree with every word 
here cited ; and, until unexpected evidence as to the anatomy of its 
soft parts comes to my knowledge, I must rank Cryptoprocta as 
merely the type of asubfamily of the Viverride. 
As to Proteles, the words just quoted from Professor Flower con- 
cerning it confirm the previously cited remark of Mr. Turner ”, that 
from a “ dentition so singularly modified by arrest of development, 
but little evidence of zoological affinity can be adduced.” It differs 
from the Hyzenas in having a developed pollex ; but such differences 
occur in the Herpestine section of the Viverride, yet no one on that 
account would erect Bdeogale and Suricata into a distinct family, any 
more than A¢eles or Colobus amongst the Anthropoidea. A careful 
consideration of the characters of Proteles have convinced me that it 
should be included within one family along with the Hyzenas; and 
Professor Flower, in his paper on the anatomy of Proteles, concludes * 
by saying that, though still “inclined” to retain it in a distinct 
family, yet his examination of its soft parts shows its affinities 
with the Hyzenas “are closer than the examination of the skull 
alone led” him “to suppose.”’ I would, however, while merging it in 
the Hysena family, yet retain it as the type of a distinct subfamily of 
the Hyenide. 
If my views are correct, then the suborder Aluroidea will consist 
of three families—(1) the Felide, (2) the Viverride, and (3) the 
Hyenide. 
As to the first of these families, it is evidently impossible to group 
any of its existing forms in distinct subfamilies. Indeed, in a recent 
careful study of the Felide, I have been quite unable to find satisfac- 
tory characters whereby to divide that family into more than the 
two genera Felis and Cynelurus. 
* P.Z.8. 1869, p. 5. ° P. Z.8. 1848, p. 82. 3 P, ZS. 1869, p. 406. 
